Re: pivot = leading entry
- From: David C. Ullrich <ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:49:32 -0600
On 7 Feb 2006 18:37:15 -0800, "G Patel" <gaya.patel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My Lin Alg prof uses "pivot column" and "leading entry column"
interchangeably all the time. She even says "pivot, or leading entry
if you like" vise versa a lot.
The text we use doesn't really explain pivots, and when it did lightly
touch on it, it was explained as a number used to zap zeros in all the
entries below it in the column. If that is the case, then the pivot
entries should be a subset (sometimes proper subset) of the set of
leading entries.
Am I right? Because sometimes when doing the pivotting, other entries
in other columns are zapped to zero, creating a leading entry
automatically with zeros below it (thus not needing to use this leading
entry at any time for pivotting)
Is my reasoning correct?
I'm not sure what your reasoning is trying to say.
But in fact a pivot is exactly the same as the first
non-zero entry in a non-zero row. What it's used for
is not part of the definition.
Thanks for the help.
************************
David C. Ullrich
.
- References:
- pivot = leading entry
- From: G Patel
- pivot = leading entry
- Prev by Date: similarity over a field
- Next by Date: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Previous by thread: pivot = leading entry
- Next by thread: Re: pivot = leading entry
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
